Why do doctors attend traditional CME events if they don't change what they do in their surgeries? Evaluation of doctors' reasons for attending a traditional CME programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to discover what the family doctors who attended an annual refresher course wished to obtain from participating in the event and what their response was to evidence that doctor behaviour is not changed by such programmes. DESIGN: The study used the qualitative method of in-depth interviews. SETTING: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and the surrounding area. PARTICIPANTS: The informants for the study were a sample of 6 family doctors who attended the 50th Annual Refresher Course for Family Physicians, held in April 2001 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. METHOD: In-depth interviews with the participants were conducted before and after they attended the annual refresher course. The doctors had pre-registered for the 3-day course. They were purposely selected to obtain diversity of gender, year of graduation from medical school and practice location. RESULTS: The doctors interviewed had 3 main reasons for attending the refresher course: to obtain information or to be updated; to be reassured that their practice behaviour was within accepted guidelines, and to hear from and interact with the specialists who gave presentations. All the participants in the study were able to name changes they had made as the result of attending a similar type of programme in the past and were sceptical of findings that practice behaviour did not change as a result of traditional continuing medical education (CME). CONCLUSIONS: Despite current support for interactive and practice-linked educational activities, the doctors in this study valued the input of the experts who lectured at the course. These doctors were not prepared to accept the currently held precept that their behaviour did not change as a result of attendance at traditional CME programmes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".